Separation of Church and State...

[CaptainHaplo]

I so often see this referenced in everything from political discussions to lawsuits. Its "unconstitutional" some claim. Ok - here is the challenge. For all those that feel or think there is some line drawn in the constitution that says that there must be such a seperation, by all means point it out to me.

While the constitution does state that there shall be no government ADOPTION (aka forced state) religion, there is nothing in there that I can find that says that religion of any type must be barred from the workings of government.

If there were such a clause of "seperation" in the constitution, then the Declaration of Independance would have to be ruled "unconstitutional", as it states that:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.".

If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD - which is not allowed in government, then the document and the actions based upon it (and previous documents) such as the Revolutionary War were also "unconstitutional" and leave us in a quandry? Should those who believe religion and government must "never touch" then think we should immediately place ourselves back under the British Crown?

So all you anti-religion subsimmers with knowledge of American history - where is this "seperation" mandated in the constitution?

[Skybird]

Haven't we been there often before? Must we go through all of it again?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You certainly know where that is from.

More food for thought, plenty of it:
http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

Note the links on the left side.

[SteamWake]

1st amendment :doh:

http://www.usconstitution.net/

[AngusJS]

I so often see this referenced in everything from political discussions to lawsuits. Its "unconstitutional" some claim. Ok - here is the challenge. For all those that feel or think there is some line drawn in the constitution that says that there must be such a seperation, by all means point it out to me.

While the constitution does state that there shall be no government ADOPTION (aka forced state) religion, there is nothing in there that I can find that says that religion of any type must be barred from the workings of government.

If there were such a clause of "seperation" in the constitution, then the Declaration of Independance would have to be ruled "unconstitutional", as it states that:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.".

If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD - which is not allowed in government, then the document and the actions based upon it (and previous documents) such as the Revolutionary War were also "unconstitutional" and leave us in a quandry? Should those who believe religion and government must "never touch" then think we should immediately place ourselves back under the British Crown?

So all you anti-religion subsimmers with knowledge of American history - where is this "seperation" mandated in the constitution?The US government is not founded on the Declaration of Independence. It is founded on the Constitution, which contains the Establishment Clause found in the 1st Amendment. This has been interpreted to mean that the government must not prefer or promote one belief over another. So, they can't run around erecting crosses on government land and forcing kids to pray in public schools. Likewise, they can't erect stelae engraved with The God Delusion (regardless of how cool that would be), or force kids to renounce any deity. Isn't that the best solution?

The Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years before the Constitution (which, BTW, contains no reference to any deity).

[Max2147]

The Declaration of Independence is not United States law. It has substantial moral weight in our country, but zero legal weight.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state. See Everson v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale. Supreme Court rulings are considered United States law.

In addition to the First Amendment, there is Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which reads "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So technically any oath of public office that forces a person to state they believe in God is unconstitutional. "So help me God" is not offically in the Presidential oath of office - it has just become a tradition.

Think about it this way - if religion is allowed to influence politics, then politics has to be allowed to influence religion. Do you really want politicians in Washington determining what the preacher at your local church can or can't say?

[mookiemookie]

If such a declaration is based on laws of GOD

Be careful how you use the word "GOD". The founding fathers were deists, not Christians. When they mention "GOD" they mean a creator, not the god of Christianity.

Furthermore, the laws and rights outlined in the Constitution have their basis in English Common Law which derived from Roman Law and Natural Law, both of which predate Christianity.

So no, the Declaration and Constitution were not based on Christian law.

[Aramike]

I've always maintained that the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers are irrelevent in any discussion of Constitutional Law, as they wrote what they wrote. If they wanted it to mean something else, then they would've wrote that.

There are really two parts of this debate but oddly, only one ever seems to be focused upon.

I believe that there IS a LEGAL seperation between church and state. Let's use another form of the word "establishment" for a moment. An establishment of religion is known as a church, among other things.

But the part that people convieniently let slide by is "...or prohibiting the *FREE* excercise thereof...".

What does "free" mean? Why, "freedom" of course. To wit, the Constitution specifically states that, say, a kid can pray in a public school, as Congress shall make *NO LAW* respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE excercise thereof.

Furthermore, this would allow for an icon such as, say, the Ten Commandments to be displayed outside of a courthouse. How, you ask? Remember: *CONGRESS* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor may it prohibit the free excercise thereof. Meaning that should the PEOPLE vote in, say, a referrendum to display religious imagery, then Congress is prevented from preventing said display.

So yes, there IS a separation of church and state. But it's not quite what the "Freedom From Religion" bigots would have us believe.

[Sailor Steve]

I pretty much agree with Aramike, with the caveat that since the Civil War the Constitution has more and more been interpreted as applying to all lower government institutions. I'm not sure whether I like that or not, but in this case I think that government, any government, interference with religion is a bad thing, and vice versa.

I like to ask people like Haplo the opposite question: Okay, let's assume that you are right and there is absolutely no separation of Church and State (a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson, who dislike the Constitution, but cheerfully adopted by his friend James Madison, the "Father of The Constitution"). What does that mean to you? What changes do you want to make? I hear people on that side of the argument say the words "No Separation!", but I never hear where they want that to lead.

[razark]

If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally.

If a Christian group is free to put up a Christian display, then a Jewish group is free to put up a Jewish monument, a Muslim group is free to put up an Islamic monument. Soon, a Wiccan group will put up their monument. Shortly afterwards, a neopagan group will put up their monument. The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock. Of course, no one will object when a Satanic group puts up a monument to their Dark Lord, right? It's just free exercise of religion.

In reality, each group will oppose the other groups' monuments, and complain about some "false religion's" symbols being granted the same status with their own. The courthouse yard will become a cluttered mess of monuments and displays, all of them being contested and vandalized by others.

Or, we could just apply the other equality, and remove all of the monuments and displays from government property. If a group wishes to put up a display on their own property, then they are free to do it, wihtout government interference. But they also need to accpet other groups' rights to do the exact same thing.

It's not about being offended, it's about being considerate of others and allowing them the same rights you wish to have for yourself. This equality needs to extend to all levels of government, not just monuments. Passing laws based on purely religious reasons should not be done, either. If you want to hold organized prayers in school, each group must be given their chance to lead the prayer. If you have an issue with your child being told to participate in prayers to Allah in school, there is a parent somewhere that is opposed to their child being told to pray to your deity. If your religion has a youth group at school, don't be surprised if another religion wants to have a youth group at school as well.

[Skybird]

Every freedom has limits. It must have limits, else the one's freedom is practiced at the cost of the freedom of the other. A freedom of practicing religion does not mean that you have a right to do it in a way or to foster religious ideas where you limit or harass others not wishing to need to take care for or note of your practicing. This is often overseen, and this is where Islam takes is claim from that it shall not be opposed, for it just practices it's teaching (that happen to include being dominant), and that also is where people camp when claiming a right of free religious practicing in order to impose christian values and ideas onto state and society and public life and public education.

This is by Ulysses Grant:

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."

Or as I used to say: keep thy religion to thyself. Practice how you want but make sure you do not demand other needing to take care of it or taking note of it or must chnage their life becasue of you, not to mention job and business and public offices. Your religion is your private business, and nobody elses. Your relation to your deity/ies is an issue between you and him/her/them, and nobody else than you should need to care for it. But where you claim your religion is such that you must be public and must missionise and must actively try to spread your faith, you are a nuisance for others, and I reserve the right to use whatever measurements needed (even violance, if that is what it takes) to throw you back and show you your place, for your rights are not more precious than my right not to be affected by your faith. My (and other people'S) right to live free and non-caring for your faith is a thousand times more precious and humane and valuable than your faith could ever be - whatever it is that you believe. that is true if you are muslim. that is true if you are Christian. That is true if you are Jewish. That is true if you are areligious and/or atheist.


Believe what you want, but practice it in your privatesphere only, do not demand others to step back just so that you can have more freedoms than the others who should sacrifice their freedom for the sake of your religion. You bring cults and reilgious practices into the game - you are responsible to remove them again. It's called originator principle (at least in german...).

there are two ways to watch TV in your flat and listen to music in your appartement: with a volume setting that does not irritate others - or with sound being too loud. In the case of the latter, it is not the others who need to accept it. It is you who need to decrease the volume and stop behaving like a ?"%!$#?. But if you listejhn to it with modest settings and I must not listen to it in my own flat whenever you want, it is not my business and I couldn't care less for what kind of music you listen to, and how often, and I will leave you perfectly alone, and you can listen to your music all day long if you wish to do that.

[Skybird]

The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock.

:haha: Oh, do we...? :DL

:har:

[mookiemookie]

If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally.

If a Christian group is free to put up a Christian display, then a Jewish group is free to put up a Jewish monument, a Muslim group is free to put up an Islamic monument. Soon, a Wiccan group will put up their monument. Shortly afterwards, a neopagan group will put up their monument. The atheists will need a place to put up a blank rock. Of course, no one will object when a Satanic group puts up a monument to their Dark Lord, right? It's just free exercise of religion.

In reality, each group will oppose the other groups' monuments, and complain about some "false religion's" symbols being granted the same status with their own. The courthouse yard will become a cluttered mess of monuments and displays, all of them being contested and vandalized by others.

Or, we could just apply the other equality, and remove all of the monuments and displays from government property. If a group wishes to put up a display on their own property, then they are free to do it, wihtout government interference. But they also need to accpet other groups' rights to do the exact same thing.

It's not about being offended, it's about being considerate of others and allowing them the same rights you wish to have for yourself. This equality needs to extend to all levels of government, not just monuments. Passing laws based on purely religious reasons should not be done, either. If you want to hold organized prayers in school, each group must be given their chance to lead the prayer. If you have an issue with your child being told to participate in prayers to Allah in school, there is a parent somewhere that is opposed to their child being told to pray to your deity. If your religion has a youth group at school, don't be surprised if another religion wants to have a youth group at school as well.

:yep:

[Aramike]

If a private group wishes to establish a memorial, or erect the ten commandments at a courthouse, etc., they should be free to do so, provided that government money is not used. However, this needs to be applied to all religious groups equally.Why? I don't see this need at all, especially not Constitutionally.

[razark]

Why? I don't see this need at all, especially not Constitutionally.

If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed.

That's why.

[Aramike]

If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed.

That's why.Where's does the Constitution say any of that? I think you're making that up.

First of all, it's not up to the government to "allow" or "disallow" anything religious whatsoever. "Congress shall make no law" means that Congress is on the sidelines. As such, there's no such thing as favoritism in this case.

That then leaves it up to the will of the PEOPLE (not the will of the PERSON, mind you). That's where the democratic process comes into play. If the majority of people want a certain symbol to represent them, than that's who wins - that's the whole point of a democratic republic.

Indeed, the democratic process shows favoritism to the majority, but that's why certain rights are exempt from democracy.

Sorry, but if your argument is "favoritism" and "fairness", you don't have an argument Constitutionally speaking. You're arguing the equivolent of not allowing stairs on public land because lazy people don't want to traverse them and would prefer an automatic walk.

[razark]

Where's does the Constitution say any of that?

The First Amendment, backed up by the Supreme Court, the folks who decided these cases, as the Constitution established them to do.


That then leaves it up to the will of the PEOPLE (not the will of the PERSON, mind you). That's where the democratic process comes into play. If the majority of people want a certain symbol to represent them, than that's who wins - that's the whole point of a democratic republic.

Indeed, the democratic process shows favoritism to the majority, but that's why certain rights are exempt from democracy.

The Constitution protects the minority from the majority. That is the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights.

If the majority votes that owning people as slaves is legal, does that make it any more right to do so?

[Aramike]

The First Amendment, backed up by the Supreme Court, the folks who decided these cases, as the Constitution established them to do.Wrong. I asked where it said "If the government allows one group to place a monument, but denies another group the same privillage, it is showing favoritism, which is not allowed."

1st Amendment says nothing about that. The Supreme Court HAS indeed said that the GOVERNMENT cannot show favoritism (Souter in '94, I believe) - but WITHIN the framework of the government's purview. A public referrendum (which is the case I originally presented) has nothing to do with the government and any favoritism thereof. As such, the point of government favoritism is irrelevent.The Constitution protects the minority from the majority. That is the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights.Umm, of course. What's your point?

The Bill of Rights does indeed protect the minority from the majority - IN SPECIFIC WAYS. In no way does the Bill of Rights even remotely suggest that the display of any religious imagery whatsoever is an infringment upon anyone's rights. As such, this point is also irrelevent.If the majority votes that owning people as slaves is legal, does that make it any more right to do so? Erm, no. Why? Because that is something that is actually in the Constitution. Try the 14th Amendment for starters.

I do find it quite odd that you'd find a parallel between the public voting to display religious symbology and slavery, however.

Yet, one is Constitutionally prevented. The other is not. Just because the rights of the minority are protected doesn't mean they have whatever rights they want.

[Rilder]

In my opinion anyone who is sworn into office should be forced to sign a document stating they will not let their religious beliefs influence their decisions. But that's just me, The Hellenic Polytheist who's tired of christians controlling everything.

[CaptainHaplo]

The first amendment you say?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where in that - which is the entire text - state that there must be a seperation between religion and government? It says that government cannot DICTATE religion to the people - which is clearly understood. However, the idea that somehow religion must be EXCLUDED from governemnt is something else entirely! Thats my question - where does it state that religion is to be EXCLUDED from government?

Oh - and Rilder - trying to get to a spot where a leader is not allowed to use his own moral and yes - religious convictions - is not only impossible psycologically - it is also a blatently unconstitutional act in that it would be government (of the people, etc) thus PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

For those who are offended at the HISTORICAL presence of xtian symbology (and there is alot of pagan symbology in our history as well) - your FREE to not look - and FREE to be offended if you do.

[razark]

Where in that... state that there must be a seperation between religion and government?

The part about free exercise covers it. When you require that people either participate in (required school prayer) or support (public funding or public lands) your religion, you are removing their right to freely practice their own religion, or their right to freely not practice yours.

[Aramike]

The part about free exercise covers it. When you require that people either participate in (required school prayer) or support (public funding or public lands) your religion, you are removing their right to freely practice their own religion, or their right to freely not practice yours.I half, or even 3/4 agree with you. But you lost me at public land.

In the US "public" does not necessarily mean "government". While the government does hold the land in what is called a public trust, the public retains the right to democratically control the usage of many lands.

[mookiemookie]

I half, or even 3/4 agree with you. But you lost me at public land.

In the US "public" does not necessarily mean "government". While the government does hold the land in what is called a public trust, the public retains the right to democratically control the usage of many lands.

And to get a bit more circular about it, the public is democratically ruled, i.e. protected from the tyranny of the majority and therefore forbidden to favor one religion over another, which can be taken to say that expressions of one religion over another on public land is denied.

Man, I feel like we should all be in the Supreme Court chambers debating this. :know:

[Aramike]

Man, I feel like we should all be in the Supreme Court chambers debating this. :know:No doubt. :yep:

This is a good one, and is one of the reasons that I worry the Constitution is a tad broken. Good point though, even though I don't think I agree.

[razark]

I half, or even 3/4 agree with you. But you lost me at public land.

In the US "public" does not necessarily mean "government". While the government does hold the land in what is called a public trust, the public retains the right to democratically control the usage of many lands.

Perhaps public lands was the wrong way to phrase that. Government offices, places of business, etc. Courthouses, post offices, areas where the government does what the government does.

I don't have a problem with an employee hanging a cross in their cubicle, or having a Bible on their desk, or displaying a Star of David on the wall.

However, if the manager of the office buys a cross out of the office budget, or buys Bibles with government money to hand out to employees, or something to that effect, it is a problem. I also don't have a problem with a group that obtains permission to put up a religious display in front of the courthouse, provided that any other religious group is given the same permission, without regard to what religion they are. If a Christian group is given permission to display a monument, and an Islamic group is denied permission to display a monument _because_ they are Muslim, there is a problem. If the Muslims are denied permission because their monument consists of a collection of pictures, then there isn't a problem.

[Max2147]

The first amendment you say?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where in that - which is the entire text - state that there must be a seperation between religion and government? It says that government cannot DICTATE religion to the people - which is clearly understood. However, the idea that somehow religion must be EXCLUDED from governemnt is something else entirely! Thats my question - where does it state that religion is to be EXCLUDED from government?

Oh - and Rilder - trying to get to a spot where a leader is not allowed to use his own moral and yes - religious convictions - is not only impossible psycologically - it is also a blatently unconstitutional act in that it would be government (of the people, etc) thus PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof.

For those who are offended at the HISTORICAL presence of xtian symbology (and there is alot of pagan symbology in our history as well) - your FREE to not look - and FREE to be offended if you do.
The First Amendment, plus Supreme Court rulings. The latter are just as important as the former.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment means separation of church and state. Therefore, you can't just base your argument on the exact text of the Amendment, because the Supreme Court has said a lot more than that.

As an agnostic, I do believe that the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is offensive. A courtroom is a place where all should appear equal before the law, and I feel that displaying the Commandments indicates preference for those who believe in them. Yes, some of the Commandments are part of our law, but some aren't. The First Commandments states that one must believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and only that God. That's not American law, and it has no place in a courtroom.

Similarly, I don't like having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe that we are under God. Why should I have to lie to pledge allegiance to my country?

[Sailor Steve]

Well said, Max!

Similarly, I don't like having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe that we are under God. Why should I have to lie to pledge allegiance to my country?
You might be interested to know that the original pledge didn't have "under God" in it. That was added in 1954.

Me, I'm against loyalty oaths of any kind. What kind of free society requires a 'Pledge of Allegiance'?

As I said before, while it's true that the Bill of Rights only pertains to interference by the Federal Government, subsequent amendments have extended Federal authority to protect peoples rights to cover the states. While some like to argue the specific wording over the intent, I tend to agree with the above summation: Having a religious symbol or document (such as the Ten Commandments) placed on a government building is pure and simple a case of Government promoting a single religion over another.

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, didn't even want prayers in congress. He felt that if congress wanted chaplains to conduct prayers they should pay for them out of their own pockets, not the taxpayers'.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

Some more of Madison's writings on the subject:
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Even having the flag flying over government buildings is a new thing. The US flag was created because naval warships always sail under a national flag. The founders never mentioned the flag flying anywhere in public places, and it's my opinion that they would be appalled at the way modern Americans 'worship' their country.

[Aramike]

I can conceed the point of not having religious imagery on places such as courthouses, although I do not believe such imagery is representative of anything but the basis of the majority who wrote the law.

However, I find the line crossed when groups attempt to ban personal prayer in schools, prevent the president from mentioning God in the Oath of Office, etc.

[razark]

I can conceed the point of not having religious imagery on places such as courthouses, although I do not believe such imagery is representative of anything but the basis of the majority who wrote the law.

However, I find the line crossed when groups attempt to ban personal prayer in schools, prevent the president from mentioning God in the Oath of Office, etc.

I have no problems with people praying in school, as long as participation is voluntary, and they do not make a nuisance of themselves. (Find an area where you can gather and do it, don't do it in the middle of a hallway when people are trying to pass.) I also have no problem if someone wishes to say "So help me God" after an oath, so long as they do so of their own free will. If you force someone to swear an oath to a god they do not believe in, does that make their oath any more binding?

The key part here is that people are participating in these actions of their own will, not because the majority passed a law saying they had to do it.

Fun fact of history: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister. He didn't see a need to mention God in it. He also happened to be a socialist.

[Sailor Steve]

Personal prayer in schools? Praying out loud in a classroom is just as disruptive as talking, and goes against the biblical injunction against praying in public places just for show. Teacher-led class prayer is indeed government mandated religious activity and exclusionary to anyone who believes differently than the majority. I believe the usual catch-phrase is "Tyranny of the masses".

The mention of God in the oath of office is not written that way. If the incoming officer wishes to include it that's his business. Has there been an attempt to make it illegal? I see it as insidious that some people try to say that an official is "Un-American" if he doesn't use the phrase. It goes directly against the Constitutional limitation "No Religious Test".

[Aramike]

Personal prayer in schools? Praying out loud in a classroom is just as disruptive as talking, and goes against the biblical injunction against praying in public places just for show.Whoa, slow down: who said anything about praying out loud?The mention of God in the oath of office is not written that way. If the incoming officer wishes to include it that's his business. Has there been an attempt to make it illegal? I see it as insidious that some people try to say that an official is "Un-American" if he doesn't use the phrase. It goes directly against the Constitutional limitation "No Religious Test". Yes, the Freedom From Religion folks have attempted twice to sue to prevent Presidents from using God when taking the oath, along with the prayer, claiming it was exlusionary among other things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002858.html

[Skybird]

I wonder if anyone has looked up the link I gave, since you all are so busy in repeating it as if it has not been said before. :O:

Religious discussions - as always: plenty of fun. Haven't we laughed, haven't we partied so much together, comrades...? :D

Check that linik and the various keywords it offers on the left side of the page. There is plenty of historic reference that put some things into perspective.


1776 Declaration of independence (US), declared separation of the 13 colonies from Britain.
1776 "E Pluribus Unum" (US), Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson submit their design to congress with the motto meaning "One from many" .
1781 Articles of Confederacy (US), first US constitution
1787 Constitution of the United States
1789 Bill of Rights, defines civil rights of the people including freedom of expression, religion and of the press
1864 "In God We Trust" approved by Congress for use on coins.
1892 'Pledge of Allegiance' adopted by congress
1954 "Under God" is added to the Pledge of Allegiance
1956 "In God We Trust", congress declares national motto

And this is my repeatedly given classic: why atheists care for religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

You raise the same questions we have had before, so I give the same answers - do not complain, then.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYh5NUYCYsM

Religion is a personal belief system. It is no political belief system. And so those who claim that they have The Word and want to come into politics and impose morality, are dead-wrong. You can't legislate morality, people either have it or they don't have it. And if you want to develope morality, you do that within the religious-spiritual field. The fact that we lack morality in many parts of the human race, it's an indictement of the failure by religions.

[Tchocky]

Even having the flag flying over government buildings is a new thing. The US flag was created because naval warships always sail under a national flag.
I learn something new every day :)

[OneToughHerring]

I can't understand why you Americans would ever want to separate the state and the church. I mean it's soooo much fun when the're one and the same. We Finns know this. :roll: :DL

[Aramike]

I can't understand why you Americans would ever want to separate the state and the church. I mean it's soooo much fun when the're one and the same. We Finns know this. :roll: :DLI'm all for the separation.

But I'm also pragmatic. How does a cross on public land affect said separation?

It doesn't.

[Max2147]

I can conceed the point of not having religious imagery on places such as courthouses, although I do not believe such imagery is representative of anything but the basis of the majority who wrote the law.

However, I find the line crossed when groups attempt to ban personal prayer in schools, prevent the president from mentioning God in the Oath of Office, etc.
Individual students, or even private groups of students praying on their own in school, in a way that doesn't force others to participate or point them out for not participating? Fine, absolutely fine.

For example, at my high school we had a moment of silence before everybody sat down for lunch. If a student wanted to, they could say a short prayer, while the rest of us just enjoyed the silence.

My problem is if the school allows students to read prayers over the PA system, or leads prayers for the entire student body. That implies the school (and thus the government's) endorsement of one religion over others (including atheism).

As far as the Oath of Office, I believe the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests/requirements for public office means that any MANDATORY inclusion of God in any oath of office is illegal by the Constitution. However, if the person taking the oath wishes to ask for God's help after reading the oath, I have no problem whatsoever.

Overall, I think that anything that implies mandatory religion is against this country's ideals. However, private worship is also protected by our Constitution.

[Max2147]

I'm all for the separation.

But I'm also pragmatic. How does a cross on public land affect said separation?

It doesn't.
A cross, and only a cross, on public land implies public endorsement of Christianity over other religions.

If other religions are allowed to put their symbols there (including a symbol for atheism), then fine by me. For example, there are plenty of crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, but those of other faiths are allowed to be buried under their own religious symbols.

[Platapus]

I wonder what the reaction would be if we had a President only use the exact oath that is listed in the Constitution?

[Aramike]

A cross, and only a cross, on public land implies public endorsement of Christianity over other religions.

If other religions are allowed to put their symbols there (including a symbol for atheism), then fine by me. For example, there are plenty of crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, but those of other faiths are allowed to be buried under their own religious symbols.I still stand by my point. If the people democratically choose to place a single symbol, and that symbol means nothing to the Constitutionally protected processes, then they should be allowed to place that symbol.

[Aramike]

I wonder what the reaction would be if we had a President only use the exact oath that is listed in the Constitution?I suspect that, in the case of Obama, conservatives would have made a huge stink about it especially considering the controversy surrounding his church and religion.

[Max2147]

I still stand by my point. If the people democratically choose to place a single symbol, and that symbol means nothing to the Constitutionally protected processes, then they should be allowed to place that symbol.
That sounds like tyranny of the majority to me. The First Amendment is the Constitution's key protection against that.

I also think that it's difficult for a religions symbol to "mean nothing to the Constitutionally protected process." It may be innocent and harmless in the eyes of the people who believe in that religion, but it can still be offensive to people of different religions.

Think of it this way: Every time you think about a cross on public land, imagine if it was a star and crescent, or a pentagram, or some other religious symbol that you don't believe in. I think it will change your views.

For what it's worth, I think the "No God" advertisements on publicly-owned buses are also a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

[Skybird]

For what it's worth, I think the "No God" advertisements on publicly-owned buses are also a violation of the Separation of Church and State.
Not really, since state and public space are not the same. The campaign is simply stupid. I understand that it was meant to let religious missionaries, who aggressively go from door to door or try to get a public audience, tate their own medicine. But I wonder if such a bus-.campaign is the right answer. Not to mention to express a rest of doubt in one's own statement - that was the most stupid of all.

[Sailor Steve]

Whoa, slow down: who said anything about praying out loud?
If someone prays within themselves, who would even know? All public debates over the subject of school prayer have been about out-loud prayers involving the whole class.

Yes, the Freedom From Religion folks have attempted twice to sue to prevent Presidents from using God when taking the oath, along with the prayer, claiming it was exlusionary among other things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/30/AR2008123002858.html
Well, I'm with you on that one, sort of. I agree that suing to keep the candidate from adding what he wants is silly. If a president suddenly said "So help me Athena", it woud kill any chance at credibility he might have had, so "So help me God" is just words, and words are free. On the other hand, they might have some justification for being upset over the prayers, but obviously the courts didn't think so, and that's good enough for me.

[Rilder]

If the public doesn't like me saying "So Help me Zeus" when I become Emperor of Earth then they can leave the planet. :up:

[Kapt Z]

Let Santa rule the town square and the manger scene rule the church grounds.

Problem solved.:up:

[Buddahaid]

For what it's worth, I think the "No God" advertisements on publicly-owned buses are also a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

That's interesting! The space is sold for advertising revenues. Who then decides what is offensive and what isn't. Ads for say, the sex industry, or those using profanity would likely not be allowed. But ads for a service provided by a religious entity would, such as charity pleas and medical care, or Scientology.

Buddahaid

[Max2147]

That's interesting! The space is sold for advertising revenues. Who then decides what is offensive and what isn't. Ads for say, the sex industry, or those using profanity would likely not be allowed. But ads for a service provided by a religious entity would, such as charity pleas and medical care, or Scientology.

Buddahaid
My personal view is that advertisements with a religious or political message should not be allowed on public property, and that includes publicly-owned buses. I think it's fine if a religious group buys advertising space for a non-religious message like a charity drive, but advertising religion itself (or the lack thereof) on public property implies a degree of public (i.e. government) support for that religion, which IMO is a violation of the separation of church and state.

That goes for political messages too. I'd be upset if I saw an "Obama/Biden" advert on a publicly-owned bus, even though I voted for them.

If it's a private company, then it's completely different - they can do whatever they want. But if the buses were bought and/or are operated with tax dollars, then they have to be held to different standards.

[Letum]

I suspect most publicly funded buses with advertisements are not publicly
owned buses, even if they are fully publicly funded, but that's just a hunch.

[Iceman]

Seperate Church and State?...

They already are seperate.

I always find it intresting how Christians get upset over this and fail to see the bigger picture. It is taught in the Christian Bible and spoken by Christ Himself on the cross that if His kingdom were of this world, would not have 10 legions of angels came and took Him from the cross....His kingdom is not of this world nor are His chosen...they are alien.

Christ lived his whole life to show the believer how to overcome...He did overturn the money changers table , He did speak to the wrongs and follys of man yet bare the full brunt of mans evil in silence.

The law was never meant as a path to salvation but to show the errors of man...and they are evident are brought into the light.

God will do battle for His own....God gave free will it is true...many always say...why would God allow such evils in the world...God did not choose the evil we did...He sent the Son to re-open the way back to His grace and yes He will not destroy man but He will not suffer His own to remain in such an evil environment...this is why He will send the Son back....to retrieve His own....and has also prepared a place for those who "Choose" not the way of peace....

Revelation 10
5And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
7But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Revelation 19
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 22
11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Peace...